1. Title, director, and release year? Affluenza, PBS (1997)
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This film focuses on our society’s obsession with wealth. We consume way too much and that consumption has many sustainable implications, which harm then environment we live in.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The sustainability problem drawn out in this film stems from a cultural and behavioral standpoint. We as a society consume much more than we actually need. This rise to affluence has created an obsession with spending. The media tells us that it will make us happy, but as the documentary stats, spending money does not equal happiness no matter how bad the media tries to convince us it does. This over spending and consuming puts a strain on the environment as we in turn over produce to meet the demands of the global market.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The film was creative, claiming that our spending and consumption habits have gotten so bad that we are now diseased because of it. Going back to the name “Affluenza,” the made connections to infection and disease to explain the ever growing epidemic of our unsustainable spending habits.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I just spoke about how the connection to disease in regards to spending and affluenza was a compelling and creative tool, but along those lines I feel that the director of the film took it too far with the poorly scripted doctor’s office skit. It was completely unnecessary and really very corny.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
I would like to research other countries of affluence to see how they use it. It seems that there is really no country like our own in that our abundant spending and overconsumption is unmatched by any other country. Why is it that we feel the need to do so when many other countries are content in their own ways?
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
This film was definitely portrayed to the heavy consumers of America, specifically of the younger pop culture generation. They are the most vulnerable and susceptible to the corporate brainwashing of commercial advertisements.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The film suggests many bland solutions like spending less and living simply, but this is easier said than done. Our society is really based on spending. To change it something more serious must be done. Co-housing as well as advertising for the better would be a great start. When I say advertising for the better I mean using advertisements to promote a simpler life instead of the one we live today.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
The film talked a lot about our spending habits and how they are bad and bad for the environment. It definitely would have been helpful if they spoke more specifically about the exact implications that our spending was having on the environment.
1. Title, director, and release year?
Affluenza, PBS (1997)
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This film focuses on our society’s obsession with wealth. We consume way too much and that consumption has many sustainable implications, which harm then environment we live in.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The sustainability problem drawn out in this film stems from a cultural and behavioral standpoint. We as a society consume much more than we actually need. This rise to affluence has created an obsession with spending. The media tells us that it will make us happy, but as the documentary stats, spending money does not equal happiness no matter how bad the media tries to convince us it does. This over spending and consuming puts a strain on the environment as we in turn over produce to meet the demands of the global market.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The film was creative, claiming that our spending and consumption habits have gotten so bad that we are now diseased because of it. Going back to the name “Affluenza,” the made connections to infection and disease to explain the ever growing epidemic of our unsustainable spending habits.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I just spoke about how the connection to disease in regards to spending and affluenza was a compelling and creative tool, but along those lines I feel that the director of the film took it too far with the poorly scripted doctor’s office skit. It was completely unnecessary and really very corny.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
I would like to research other countries of affluence to see how they use it. It seems that there is really no country like our own in that our abundant spending and overconsumption is unmatched by any other country. Why is it that we feel the need to do so when many other countries are content in their own ways?
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
This film was definitely portrayed to the heavy consumers of America, specifically of the younger pop culture generation. They are the most vulnerable and susceptible to the corporate brainwashing of commercial advertisements.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The film suggests many bland solutions like spending less and living simply, but this is easier said than done. Our society is really based on spending. To change it something more serious must be done. Co-housing as well as advertising for the better would be a great start. When I say advertising for the better I mean using advertisements to promote a simpler life instead of the one we live today.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
The film talked a lot about our spending habits and how they are bad and bad for the environment. It definitely would have been helpful if they spoke more specifically about the exact implications that our spending was having on the environment.